Claude Code Plugins

Community-maintained marketplace

Feedback

moai-alfred-code-reviewer

@modu-ai/moai-adk
137
0

Systematic code review guidance and automation. Apply TRUST 5 principles, check code quality, validate SOLID principles, identify security issues, and ensure maintainability. Use when conducting code reviews, setting review standards, or implementing review automation.

Install Skill

1Download skill
2Enable skills in Claude

Open claude.ai/settings/capabilities and find the "Skills" section

3Upload to Claude

Click "Upload skill" and select the downloaded ZIP file

Note: Please verify skill by going through its instructions before using it.

SKILL.md

name moai-alfred-code-reviewer
description Systematic code review guidance and automation. Apply TRUST 5 principles, check code quality, validate SOLID principles, identify security issues, and ensure maintainability. Use when conducting code reviews, setting review standards, or implementing review automation.
allowed-tools Read, Write, Edit, Glob, Bash

Skill Metadata

Field Value
Version 1.0.0
Tier Quality
Auto-load When conducting code reviews or quality checks

What It Does

체계적인 코드 리뷰 프로세스와 자동화 가이드를 제공합니다. TRUST 5 원칙 적용, 코드 품질 검증, SOLID 원칙 준수, 보안 이슈 식별, 유지보수성 보장을 다룹니다.

When to Use

  • 코드 리뷰를 수행할 때
  • 리뷰 표준과 가이드라인을 설정할 때
  • 코드 품질 자동화를 구현할 때
  • 팀의 코드 리뷰 문화를 개선할 때

Systematic Code Review with TRUST 5 Principles

Code review is a quality assurance process that ensures code meets standards, follows best practices, and maintains long-term maintainability. This skill provides systematic guidance for conducting thorough, effective code reviews.

Code Review Framework

The TRUST 5 Review Framework

Principle Review Focus Key Questions Tools
T - Test First Test coverage & quality Are tests comprehensive? Do they test edge cases? pytest coverage, jest --coverage
R - Readable Code clarity & maintainability Is code self-documenting? Are names meaningful? linters, code formatters
U - Unified Consistency & standards Does it follow team patterns? Is it cohesive? style guides, architectural patterns
S - Secured Security & vulnerabilities Are inputs validated? Are secrets handled properly? security scanners, static analysis
T - Trackable Documentation & traceability Is code linked to requirements? Are changes documented? @TAG system, git history

High-Freedom: Review Strategy & Philosophy

When to Review vs When to Trust

## Review Decision Matrix

| Change Type | Review Level | Automation | Focus Areas |
|-------------|--------------|------------|-------------|
| Critical security | 🔴 Mandatory | Full scan | Vulnerabilities, input validation |
| Core architecture | 🟡 Deep review | Partial | Design patterns, scalability |
| Bug fixes | 🟢 Standard | Automated | Root cause, test coverage |
| Documentation | 🟢 Light | Basic | Accuracy, completeness |
| Configuration | 🟢 Automated | Full | Security, best practices |

Review Culture Principles

Psychological Safety: Reviews are about code, not people
Learning Opportunity: Reviews transfer knowledge and standards
Constructive Feedback: Focus on improvement, not criticism
Consistent Standards: Apply same criteria to all code
Efficient Process: Automated checks first, human review for value-add

Review Anti-patterns to Avoid

Nitpicking: Focus on style over substance
Authoritarian: "Do it this way because I said so"
Incomplete: "Looks good" without specific feedback
Delayed: Reviews blocking progress for days
Inconsistent: Different standards for different people

Medium-Freedom: Review Process & Checklists

Structured Review Process

## Review Workflow

1. PRE-REVIEW AUTOMATION (2-5 min)
   a. Run linters and formatters
   b. Execute test suite with coverage
   c. Scan for security vulnerabilities
   d. Check for @TAG compliance
   
2. CODE COMPREHENSION (5-10 min)
   a. Read commit message and PR description
   b. Understand the problem being solved
   c. Identify affected components
   d. Review test changes first
   
3. DETAILED REVIEW (10-20 min)
   a. Apply TRUST 5 framework systematically
   b. Check architectural consistency
   c. Validate error handling
   d. Assess performance implications
   
4. FEEDBACK SYNTHESIS (5 min)
   a. Categorize issues: Must-fix, Should-fix, Nice-to-have
   b. Provide specific, actionable feedback
   c. Explain reasoning behind suggestions
   d. Offer to discuss complex changes

Code Review Checklist Template

## Code Review Checklist

### 🧪 Test Coverage (T)
- [ ] New features have corresponding tests
- [ ] Test coverage ≥ 85% (or team standard)
- [ ] Edge cases and error conditions tested
- [ ] Integration tests included where appropriate
- [ ] Tests are readable and maintainable

### 📖 Readability (R)
- [ ] Function and variable names are descriptive
- [ ] Complex logic is commented or extracted
- [ ] File length ≤ 300 LOC (or team standard)
- [ ] Function length ≤ 50 LOC (or team standard)
- [ ] No magic numbers or hardcoded values

### 🔗 Unity (U)
- [ ] Follows established team patterns
- [ ] Consistent with existing codebase style
- [ ] Uses shared utilities and libraries
- [ ] Architecture aligns with project structure
- [ ] Imports and dependencies are organized

### 🔒 Security (S)
- [ ] Input validation for all user inputs
- [ ] No hardcoded secrets or credentials
- [ ] Proper error handling without information leakage
- [ ] Authentication and authorization checked
- [ ] SQL injection and XSS protection in place

### 🏷️ Traceability (T)
- [ ] Code changes linked to SPEC or issue
- [ ] @TAG references are correct and complete
- [ ] Commit message is clear and descriptive
- [ ] Documentation updated as needed
- [ ] Breaking changes are documented

Low-Freedom: Automated Review Scripts

Pre-commit Review Automation

#!/bin/bash
# .claude/skills/moai-alfred-code-reviewer/scripts/pre-review-check.sh

set -e

echo "🔍 Running automated code review checks..."

# Test Coverage Check
echo "📊 Checking test coverage..."
python -m pytest --cov=src --cov-fail-under=85 --cov-report=term-missing

# Code Quality Checks
echo "🧹 Running linters..."
python -m ruff check src/ --show-source
python -m mypy src/ --strict

# Security Scanning
echo "🔒 Scanning for security issues..."
python -m bandit -r src/ -f json -o bandit-report.json

echo "✅ All automated checks passed!"

Integration with Development Workflow

Pre-commit Integration

# .pre-commit-config.yaml
repos:
  - repo: local
    hooks:
      - id: security-review
        name: Security Review
        entry: .claude/skills/moai-alfred-code-reviewer/scripts/security_review.py
        language: script
        args: [src/]
        pass_filenames: false

Review Best Practices Summary

For Reviewers

Start with understanding: Read the PR description first
Automate first: Let tools catch the obvious issues
Focus on value: Spend time on architectural and security concerns
Be specific: Provide exact locations and suggestions
Explain why: Help the author understand the reasoning

For Authors

Self-review first: Run all automated checks before submitting
Write clear descriptions: Explain what and why
Keep PRs small: Large changes are harder to review effectively
Respond promptly: Address feedback in a timely manner
Learn from feedback: Use reviews as learning opportunities


Reference: Code Review Best Practices, TRUST 5 Principles
Version: 1.0.0